It's for x86. It uses Mozilla engine for the browser. It's nowhere near functional. I thought about posting from it's browser, but I couldn't log in. I uses gtk for the widget. It comes with the same annoying you've got mail sounds. You apparantly can't log in to aol with it unless you're a beta tester(if it's available for that yet). I do like the design better than the win version, as it uses multiple windows (separate ones). It is very far from feature complete (exetremely far). The only buttons that work are write mail and get aol 5.0. I'm sure if I could actually log in more would be activated, but I have no way of checking this. Also there seems to be no dialup capability. After looking at this, I'm sure that is a testbed for future internet appliances.
Personally, I can't stand aol, but I do welcome their push into the linux arena with open arms. It's possible that this and the recent team-up of sun,ibm,hp... will start to move more people away from microslop.
What this has done for me is renew my interest in mozilla. I just might go play with it again.
--If it can be shown that you where helping the local crack dealer by telling prospective customers how to get to his crack house, is this aiding and abetting? --
you hit the key word with "prospective", the direction giver would have to be aware of a specific instance of crime for aid/abet and not just the possibility of crime. Is the author of bomb making info guilty of aid/abet the unabomber?
--Only authorised distribution is allowed. Note "distribution" If you have a perscription from your doctor for valium, you can buy it from the local pharmacy. They are authorised to sell "illegal" drugs, because they have the mechanisms in place to help hinder illegal sales. It is STILL illegal for a street vendor to sell you valium EVEN THOUGH you have a perscription. --
the analogy dosn't quite hold here. The distribution of drugs is regulated by the FDA for reasons of consumer trust (to make sure granny doesn't actually get sugar pills or cyanide instead). This was done because of the popularity of "wonder elixirs" and like stuff. The reasons behind ua sell of drugs and ua sell of cp material are far too different to draw analogies.
-- The usenet server? The admin didn't know there was illegal content there. He cannot be reasonably expected to sift through the 30 GIG's (or more) of posts that traverse the "big 8" daily
The poster? YES... but is it worth it to track him down? (in some cases, yes... in fact, there are divisions of the FBI that do nothing more than track down people posting kiddie porn to Usenet.)
does any of this make a difference? Not really. There is still plenty of illegal content on Usenet. There is also plenty of perfectly legal content too. Illegal acts often get ignored due to the hardships encountered in attempting to enforce the law. --
I wasn't targeting the service per se, only certain groups that they carry. It was a fine point that I think you missed. It would be like yahoo putting an "Unauthorized, Copyrighted mp3z" category in their directory. The usenet server doesn't need to sift through large amounts of posts to know there's copryright infringement going on, else the people they service would have to also. My point was the fact that the services carry the groups that do this constitutes a "link" as much as a hyperlink on a webpage.
-- The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute. Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is also illegal. --
Proof of intent is in the pudding (the dark cloudy kind). You hit upon a key arguement here. Suppose I backup all of my cd's on a webserver? This would be exetremely useful to me, because they will always be there (hopefully), and I can listen to MY music from anywhere in the world without carrying a bunch of cd's. There is no -intent- to distribute. I have no cd player in the car, so while driving I listen to tapes that were recorded from home. Somebody steals the tapes from my car. Oh darn, I have to make more tapes. BTW, this reasoning has already saved a couple of my friends their hard earned money. Does the fact that I left the windows in the car down while I went inside to pay for the gas constitute intent to distribute?
-- On the surface? They can't. This is where protecting copyrights comes into play. Copyright does not matter unless the entity that owns the copyright comes forward and asserts its rights. --
Where does the surface end and the meat begin? Is it up to the judge "who knows it when he sees it"? This has a lot to do with the "midi" arguement. Can the lyrics exist without the tune or the tune without the lyrics and still be copyright infringement. Suppose its a copy of a band playing a cover, although it sounds a lot like the "real thing". Suppose the same band were to play in front of the judge.
I appreciate the time you took in answering my questions. Your responses were provocative of thought, for the most part. The parts you didn't quite get are only my failure to express myself accurately the first time. I apologize for that. On the surface some of the questions I raised seem simple with simple, common sense answers, but I'm really trying to dig into the "common sense" itself.
1. Does the fact that a webpage has links to mp3's on another page actually constitute aiding and/or abetting? It would seem to me that the person responsible for the links would have to know of a specific instance of piracy involving those links, rather than be aware of the possibility or likelyhood of piracy, to be convicted of such an offense.
2. Is there a legitamate purpose for downloading a copyrighted mp3? For example, I have a badly sunburnt tape of , I bought many years ago. This tape won't play anymore, but lo and behold, I find the same material on the net, and make another tape. Is this a legitimate use? My feeling is that it is, as I have already paid the author, label, etc. all they are due from me.
3. What about usenet servers? They are different from yahoo and google in the fact that they actually store, for a limited time, all sorts of stuff. What about sites like Remarq? I have pulled multipart binaries from them before (as of a year ago, it was possible, although exetremely tricky). Does the fact that they even carry an alt.bin.warez.. group imply that they are knowingly aid/abetting piracy? If they get by this by stating that there are legitimate posts in those groups, can mp3board do the same by claiming that they link to some that have both copyrighted and public-domain mp3's?
4. This question follows from #2. If there is actually a legit purpose for dowloading a copyrighted mp3, can mp3board claim they were actually helping restore peoples' trashed media? (if the answer to #2 is no, then this point is moot)
5. If a website has mp3's on it, when does the piracy occur, on the authoring of the site, or the first download? Suppose there is a new computer on demonstration at wal-mart. Suppose I waltz in there with a floppy and save a copy of on it. The computer is on public display, just as a webpage is. Is wal-mart guilty of the same offense as a webpage full of mp3's? The question here is whether foreknowledge that piracy could be committed equate to an act of offense?
6. What happens when a band plays a cover? Do they have to get permission from each band? What if they tape the concert and sell an album? What about midi? What about having an mp3 of a midi under the same name and tune of a song? Can I make a midi to the tune of Old Man River with tempo, beat, and instumentation to match Jim Croce's version, and distribute the midi legally?
7. I think the most fundamental question is what constitutes an actual infringement. By this I mean, how can a person tell that an mp3 is actually copyrighted material? Is there a physical test that has set tolerances (a waveform diff)? Or is it up to the judge who "knows porn when he sees it"? A test for plaigerism or written copyright violations has been easy and straightforward (word for word), music is not quite as tangible.
8. If one file on a site is copyrighted, do they all have to go, or does each one have to be tested?
I understand that some of these questions are a litle meta-physical or seem to be in need of common sense, but I feel the true heart of this matter (other than the money hungry record industry) hasn't been fully examined yet. I believe that one day, the majority of the population will wake up, yawn, and wonder what happened to the things that used to be taken for granted, then some things will change. I'm not too worried about the music industry winning these battles, because they'll only make the chains heavier and more noticeable to the average joe. It's like a really slow game of pong, the ball's in our court but hasn't hit the paddle yet.
Slashdot Mirror
To answer a few questions.
It's for x86. It uses Mozilla engine for the browser. It's nowhere near functional. I thought about posting from it's browser, but I couldn't log in. I uses gtk for the widget. It comes with the same annoying you've got mail sounds. You apparantly can't log in to aol with it unless you're a beta tester(if it's available for that yet). I do like the design better than the win version, as it uses multiple windows (separate ones). It is very far from feature complete (exetremely far). The only buttons that work are write mail and get aol 5.0. I'm sure if I could actually log in more would be activated, but I have no way of checking this. Also there seems to be no dialup capability. After looking at this, I'm sure that is a testbed for future internet appliances.
Personally, I can't stand aol, but I do welcome their push into the linux arena with open arms. It's possible that this and the recent team-up of sun,ibm,hp... will start to move more people away from microslop.
What this has done for me is renew my interest in mozilla. I just might go play with it again.
"They're good for sounding "innovative" and getting patents which then attract venture capitalists."
Very Insightful! Whoever said that the ability to be hoodwinked belongs solely to the general public.
--If it can be shown that you where helping the local crack dealer by telling
:)
prospective customers how to get to his crack house, is this aiding and
abetting? --
you hit the key word with "prospective", the direction giver would have to be aware of a specific instance of crime for aid/abet and not just the possibility of crime. Is the author of bomb making info guilty of aid/abet the unabomber?
--Only authorised distribution is allowed. Note "distribution" If you have a
perscription from your doctor for valium, you can buy it from the local
pharmacy. They are authorised to sell "illegal" drugs, because they have the
mechanisms in place to help hinder illegal sales. It is STILL illegal for a
street vendor to sell you valium EVEN THOUGH you have a perscription. --
the analogy dosn't quite hold here. The distribution of drugs is regulated by the FDA for reasons of consumer trust (to make sure granny doesn't actually get sugar pills or cyanide instead). This was done because of the popularity of "wonder elixirs" and like stuff. The reasons behind ua sell of drugs and ua sell of cp material are far too different to draw analogies.
-- The usenet server? The admin didn't know there was illegal content there.
He cannot be reasonably expected to sift through the 30 GIG's (or more) of
posts that traverse the "big 8" daily
The poster? YES... but is it worth it to track him down? (in some cases,
yes... in fact, there are divisions of the FBI that do nothing more than track
down people posting kiddie porn to Usenet.)
does any of this make a difference? Not really. There is still plenty of illegal
content on Usenet. There is also plenty of perfectly legal content too. Illegal
acts often get ignored due to the hardships encountered in attempting to
enforce the law. --
I wasn't targeting the service per se, only certain groups that they carry. It was a fine point that I think you missed. It would be like yahoo putting an "Unauthorized, Copyrighted mp3z" category in their directory. The usenet server doesn't need to sift through large amounts of posts to know there's copryright infringement going on, else the people they service would have to also. My point was the fact that the services carry the groups that do this constitutes a "link" as much as a hyperlink on a webpage.
-- The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute.
Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is
also illegal. --
Proof of intent is in the pudding (the dark cloudy kind). You hit upon a key arguement here. Suppose I backup all of my cd's on a webserver? This would be exetremely useful to me, because they will always be there (hopefully), and I can listen to MY music from anywhere in the world without carrying a bunch of cd's. There is no -intent- to distribute. I have no cd player in the car, so while driving I listen to tapes that were recorded from home. Somebody steals the tapes from my car. Oh darn, I have to make more tapes. BTW, this reasoning has already saved a couple of my friends their hard earned money. Does the fact that I left the windows in the car down while I went inside to pay for the gas constitute intent to distribute?
-- On the surface? They can't. This is where protecting copyrights comes into
play. Copyright does not matter unless the entity that owns the copyright
comes forward and asserts its rights. --
Where does the surface end and the meat begin? Is it up to the judge "who knows it when he sees it"? This has a lot to do with the "midi" arguement. Can the lyrics exist without the tune or the tune without the lyrics and still be copyright infringement. Suppose its a copy of a band playing a cover, although it sounds a lot like the "real thing". Suppose the same band were to play in front of the judge.
I appreciate the time you took in answering my questions. Your responses were provocative of thought, for the most part. The parts you didn't quite get are only my failure to express myself accurately the first time. I apologize for that. On the surface some of the questions I raised seem simple with simple, common sense answers, but I'm really trying to dig into the "common sense" itself.
Thanks
1. Does the fact that a webpage has links to mp3's on another page actually constitute aiding and/or abetting? It would seem to me that the person responsible for the links would have to know of a specific instance of piracy involving those links, rather than be aware of the possibility or likelyhood of piracy, to be convicted of such an offense.
2. Is there a legitamate purpose for downloading a copyrighted mp3? For example, I have a badly sunburnt tape of , I bought many years ago. This tape won't play anymore, but lo and behold, I find the same material on the net, and make another tape. Is this a legitimate use? My feeling is that it is, as I have already paid the author, label, etc. all they are due from me.
3. What about usenet servers? They are different from yahoo and google in the fact that they actually store, for a limited time, all sorts of stuff. What about sites like Remarq? I have pulled multipart binaries from them before (as of a year ago, it was possible, although exetremely tricky). Does the fact that they even carry an alt.bin.warez.. group imply that they are knowingly aid/abetting piracy? If they get by this by stating that there are legitimate posts in those groups, can mp3board do the same by claiming that they link to some that have both copyrighted and public-domain mp3's?
4. This question follows from #2. If there is actually a legit purpose for dowloading a copyrighted mp3, can mp3board claim they were actually helping restore peoples' trashed media? (if the answer to #2 is no, then this point is moot)
5. If a website has mp3's on it, when does the piracy occur, on the authoring of the site, or the first download? Suppose there is a new computer on demonstration at wal-mart. Suppose I waltz in there with a floppy and save a copy of on it. The computer is on public display, just as a webpage is. Is wal-mart guilty of the same offense as a webpage full of mp3's? The question here is whether foreknowledge that piracy could be committed equate to an act of offense?
6. What happens when a band plays a cover? Do they have to get permission from each band? What if they tape the concert and sell an album? What about midi? What about having an mp3 of a midi under the same name and tune of a song? Can I make a midi to the tune of Old Man River with tempo, beat, and instumentation to match Jim Croce's version, and distribute the midi legally?
7. I think the most fundamental question is what constitutes an actual infringement. By this I mean, how can a person tell that an mp3 is actually copyrighted material? Is there a physical test that has set tolerances (a waveform diff)? Or is it up to the judge who "knows porn when he sees it"? A test for plaigerism or written copyright violations has been easy and straightforward (word for word), music is not quite as tangible.
8. If one file on a site is copyrighted, do they all have to go, or does each one have to be tested?
I understand that some of these questions are a litle meta-physical or seem to be in need of common sense, but I feel the true heart of this matter (other than the money hungry record industry) hasn't been fully examined yet. I believe that one day, the majority of the population will wake up, yawn, and wonder what happened to the things that used to be taken for granted, then some things will change. I'm not too worried about the music industry winning these battles, because they'll only make the chains heavier and more noticeable to the average joe. It's like a really slow game of pong, the ball's in our court but hasn't hit the paddle yet.